Rahmatulla Vs. Mofizulla and ors.

Rahmatulla vs Mofizulla and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 07, 1913

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/868972

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/868972
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Harry Stephen and; D. Chatterjee, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 07, 1913
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 9, scope of - Land, possession of--Court, jurisdiction of--House built, if can be removed. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rahmatulla

Respondent

Mofizulla and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 28Ind.Cas.473

Excerpt

specific relief act (i of 1877), section 9, scope of - land, possession of--court, jurisdiction of--house built, if can be removed. - 1. in this case the lower-court has made an order under section 9 of the specific relief act, which is as follows:the suit is, therefore, decreed with, costs-against the defendants nos. 1 to 8 and it is ordered that the plaintiffs do recover khas possession of the land by removing the house built on it by the defendants if necessary.2. we granted a rule calling, upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the court. that portion of the order which allows the plaintiff to remove the house built on the land by the defendant, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court under the section; for under that section the court cannot do more than make an order with respect to possession of the land.3. the rule is, therefore, made absolute, the first part of the order remains unaffected and that part of the order which directs to remove the house, etc., is set aside.4. the petitioner entitled to his costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.

Full Judgment

1. In this case the lower-Court has made an order under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, which is as follows:

The suit is, therefore, decreed with, costs-against the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 and it is ordered that the plaintiffs do recover khas possession of the land by removing the house built on it by the defendants if necessary.

2. We granted a Rule calling, upon the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. That portion of the order which allows the plaintiff to remove the house built on the land by the defendant, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under the section; for under that section the Court cannot do more than make an order with respect to possession of the land.

3. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute, the first part of the order remains unaffected and that part of the order which directs to remove the house, etc., is set aside.

4. The petitioner entitled to his costs, the hearing fee being assessed at one gold mohur.

Same Parties Rahmatulla vs Mofizulla and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Harry Stephen and; D. Chatterjee, JJ.

Civil